cos_create_bucket

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description only says 'create' and does not disclose behavioral traits such as naming constraints (globally unique bucket name), potential latency, or idempotency. Since annotations are absent, the description should cover these but fails to do so.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no redundant words, achieving maximum conciseness. It is front-loaded with the core action.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the absence of output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., bucket config), defaults for optional parameters (region, storage_class), or error conditions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 25% (only storage_class has a descriptive example). The description adds no further meaning to bucket_name or instance_crn, leaving their semantics unclear. For a low-coverage schema, the description should compensate but does not.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action 'Create a COS bucket' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like cos_delete_bucket. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from other cos tools or mention that it is for IBM Cloud Object Storage.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., cos_put_object creates objects, not buckets). There are no prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent without usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.